THE “SHITHOLE” SOURCE CONUNDRUM

Was Democrat Senator Durbin the only source of the story that Trump referred to African nations as “shithole” countries? Did the “Washington Post” and “New York Times” take the word of an interested party over the denials of the Republicans present and of the president himself?

This New York Times story of 20 January is as close to an account of how the story broke as I’ve found:

“Mr. Durbin said he did not personally leak details of the conversation and also directed his staff not to discuss it. But he did share his version of events with four other senators as they plotted how to proceed. Word of what happened during the meeting — and one word in particular — quickly circulated and was first reported by The Washington Post within hours.”

But if Durbin, the only Democrat present at the meeting about DACA, was the source, doesn’t that make it a his-word-against-theirs situation?

I certainly found Durbin’s sober report of the term to be convincing. I’m strongly inclined to believe him. But then, as Trump supporters would no doubt point out, “Exactly, given your liberal politics, you are inclined to believe the anti-Trump story.” To which I would like to be able to respond: “Yeah, but there was an objective, third-party witness to that story.” But if there was, what was it? And unless there is another source, don’t Trump supporters have a point?

Surely, I want to think the NYT would not have left itself open to more outraged claims by Trump supporters of fake news, biassed media. Would they?

Am I missing something here?

There’s this from an online CNN story: “Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin, a Democrat who was in the Oval Office on Thursday for the now-infamous immigration meeting, spoke out publicly Friday morning to insist that the reporting of what Trump said (and about whom) was entirely accurate.” My question is: what was the “reporting” which Durbin is corroborating based on if not Durbin’s story itself?

No Comments

About This

In the spirit of full disclosure: this blog is about everything. Yes, I know, that sounds both irresponsibly noncommital and ridiculously ambitious, but it’s not really. “About everything” in the sense that it’s about life. Call it an ongoing inquiry into how life works, how to live. My version of what I regard as everyone’s basic project, required by living, the old experiment-of-one.